Colorectal procedures with the novel Hugo™ RAS system: training process and case series report from a non-robotic surgical team.

BACKGROUND: The landscape of robotic surgery is evolving with the emergence of new platforms. However, reports on their applicability in different surgical fields are still limited and come from teams with robotics experience. This study aims to describe the training process for colorectal surgery with the Hugo™ RAS system of a robotics-inexperienced surgical team and present the initial patient series. METHODS: The training process is depicted, and data from the first 10 consecutive patients operated on for colorectal conditions with the Hugo™ RAS system by a surgical team with no prior experience in robotic surgery were prospectively recorded and analysed. RESULTS: The team received intensive training in robotic surgery and specifically in the Hugo™ RAS system previously to the first case. Between May 2023 and December 2023, 10 patients underwent colorectal procedures: 5 right colectomies, 3 sigmoid resections, 1 high rectal resection and 1 ventral mesh rectopexy. The first case was proctored by an expert. Median docking time was 14 min and median total operative time was 185 min. The only technical difficulty during the procedures was occasional clashing of robotic arms. None had to be converted, and no intraoperative or postoperative morbidity was recorded. Hospital stays ranged from 2 to 4 days. A median of 21 lymph nodes were yielded in the operations for malignant conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Common colorectal procedures can be safely performed using the Hugo™ RAS platform. Prior experience in robotic surgery is not a necessary requirement, but following a structured training program is essential.

Multicenter clinical trial for the resection of rectal polyps using a new laparoendoscopic hybrid transanal access device.

INTRODUCTION: Complex polyps require the use of advanced endoscopic techniques or minimally invasive surgery for their approach. In rectal polyps it is of special relevance to reach a consensus on the best approach to avoid under- or overtreatment that increases unnecessary morbidity and mortality. METHODS: We describe a prospective, multicenter, pilot clinical trial with a first-in-human medical device. It is hypothesized that UNI-VEC® facilitates transanal laparoendoscopic surgery for the removal of early rectal tumors. The primary objective is to evaluate that it is safe and meets the established functional requirements. Secondary objectives are to evaluate results, complications and level of satisfaction. RESULTS: 16 patients were recruited in 12 months with a minimum follow-up of 2 months. The mean size was 3.4 cm with the largest polyp being 6 cm. Regarding location, the mean was 6.6 cm from the anal margin. Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) (6.3%), Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection ESD (43.8%), REC (6.3%) and TAMIS (43.8%) were performed. The mean time was 73.25 min. The 56.3% used a 30° camera and 43.8% used the flexible endoscope as a viewing instrument. The 56.3% were benign lesions and 43.8% malignant. Complete resection is achieved in 87.5%. Regarding complications, mild bleeding (Clavien I) occurred in 25%, 6.3% and 21.4% at 24 h, 48 h and 7 days respectively. Continence was assessed according to the Wexner scale. At 7 days, 60% showed perfect continence, 26.7% mild FI and 13.3% moderate FI. At 30 days, 66.7% had perfect continence, 20% mild FI and 13.3% moderate FI. At 2 months, 4 patients were reviewed who at 30 days had a Wexner's degree higher than preoperative and perfect continence was demonstrated in 25% of the patients, 50% mild and 25% moderate. In no case did rectal perforation or major complications requiring urgent reintervention occur. As for the level of reproducibility, safety, level of satisfaction with the device and evaluation of the blister, the evaluation on a scale of 0-10 (9.43, 9.71, 9.29 and 9.50 respectively). All the investigators have previous experience with transanal devices. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates the efficacy and safety of UNI-VEC® for the treatment of rectal lesions. It will facilitate the implementation of hybrid procedures that seek to solve the limitations of pure endoscopic techniques by allowing the concomitant use of conventional laparoscopic and robotic instrumentation with the flexible endoscope.

Impact on surgical and oncological results of the use of colonic stents as a bridge to surgery for potentially curable occlusive colorectal neoplasms. / Impacto de la utilización de stents colónicos como puente a la cirugía de neoplasias colorrectales oclusivas potencialmente curables sobre los resultados quirúrgicos y oncológicos.

INTRODUCTION: The outcomes of patients treated with colonic stents as a bridge to surgery (BTS) have recently been questioned in terms of safety and long-term oncologic outcomes. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects on surgical and oncologic outcomes of colonic stents as a BTS for potentially resectable obstructive colorectal cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients operated on for potentially resectable obstructive colorectal cancer with or without distant disease between September 2002 and October 2015, comparing the patients treated with a colonic stent as a BTS (Stent group) with those directly operated on (Surgery group). RESULTS: Twenty patients underwent urgent surgery, while stent placement as a BTS was attempted in 57 patients. The Stent group had more patients treated with a laparoscopic approach (64.9 vs. 5%, P<.001), higher primary anastomosis rate (91.2 vs. 55%, P=.001), less need for stomata (10.5 vs. 50%, P=.001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (7 vs. 12 days, P=.014). Thirty-day morbidity was reduced in the Stent group, although not significantly (29.8 vs. 50%, P=.104). However, 30-day mortality was significantly lower (1.8 vs. 20%, P=.015). Regarding the long-term oncologic outcomes, no significant differences were found when comparing overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence-free survival, distant recurrence-free survival or progression-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Colonic stenting as a BTS for potentially resectable obstructive colorectal cancer seems to offer better surgical and equal long-term oncologic outcomes when compared to those of patients directly operated on.

Vasitis mimicking an Amyand's hernia: A case report.

INTRODUCTION: Amyand's hernia is an inguinal hernia containing the caecal appendix. It is usually an intraoperative finding, although it can be diagnosed preoperatively with radiologic examinations, which would show a tubular structure inside the inguinal canal. PRESENTATION OF CASE: A male patient presented to the emergency department complaining of abdominal pain in the right lower quadrant. He had been orchidectomized during his childhood due to cryptorchidism, and had been under antibiotic treatment a week before due to a suspected gonorrhoea. A small irreductible mass was found in the right groin. Blood tests showed leucocytosis and elevated CRP. A CT-scan was performed, reporting a tubular structure with a blind end entering the inguinal canal that seemed to be the appendix. Single-port laparoscopic exploration was indicated, and a right vasitis was found instead of an Amyand's hernia. After the operation, the patient explained that he had not taken the antibiotics for the gonorrhoea. DISCUSSION: Untreated gonorrhoea causes ascendant vasitis and orchyepididimitis. In the present case, since the patient did not have testicles, the inflamed vas deferens mimicked the Appendix inside the inguinal canal. If the patient had told the truth about the untreated gonorrhoea, maybe the condition would have been suspected and no radiological examinations would have been performed, which subsequently lead to an unnecessary operation. CONCLUSION: Presently, Amyand's hernia is more frequently diagnosed preoperatively than intraoperatively. However when an Amyand's hernia is preoperatively suspected, the possibility of a vasitis should always be ruled out in order to avoid unnecessary operations.

Impacto de la utilización de stents colónicos como puente a la cirugía de neoplasias colorrectales oclusivas potencialmente curables sobre los resultados quirúrgicos y oncológicos / Impact on surgical and oncological results of the use of colonic stents as a bridge to surgery for potentially curable occlusive colorectal neoplasms

INTRODUCCIÓN: La seguridad y los resultados oncológicos de los pacientes tratados con stents cólicos como puente a la cirugía (PAC) son controvertidos. El objetivo de este estudio es evaluar los efectos sobre los resultados quirúrgicos y oncológicos de los stents como PAC de las neoplasias colorrectales oclusivas potencialmente resecables. MÉTODOS: Análisis retrospectivo de los pacientes intervenidos por neoplasia colorrectal oclusiva potencialmente resecable con o sin enfermedad a distancia entre septiembre de 2002 y octubre de 2015, comparando los pacientes tratados con stent como PAC (grupo Stent) con los intervenidos de forma urgente (grupo Cirugía). RESULTADOS: Veinte pacientes fueron intervenidos directamente, mientras que se intentó la colocación de un stent en 57 pacientes. En el grupo Stent hubo más intervenciones laparoscópicas (64,9 vs. 5%, p < 0,001), más anastomosis primarias (91,2 vs. 55%, p = 0,001), menos estomas (10,5 vs. 50%, p = 0,001) y una estancia postoperatoria más corta (7 vs. 12 días, p = 0,014). La morbilidad a los 30 días fue menor en el grupo Stent, pero no de forma significativa (29,8 vs. 50%, p = 0,104), aunque sí lo fue la mortalidad (1,8 vs. 20%, p = 0,015). Respecto a los resultados oncológicos, no se encontraron diferencias significativas al comparar la supervivencia global, el intervalo libre de enfermedad, la supervivencia libre de recidiva local o a distancia ni la supervivencia libre de progresión. CONCLUSIONES: La utilización de stents cólicos como PAC de las neoplasias colorrectales oclusivas potencialmente resecables parece proporcionar mejores resultados quirúrgicos y resultados oncológicos equiparables a los de los pacientes intervenidos directamente

INTRODUCTION: The outcomes of patients treated with colonic stents as a bridge to surgery (BTS) have recently been questioned in terms of safety and long-term oncologic outcomes. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects on surgical and oncologic outcomes of colonic stents as a BTS for potentially resectable obstructive colorectal cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients operated on for potentially resectable obstructive colorectal cancer with or without distant disease between September 2002 and October 2015, comparing the patients treated with a colonic stent as a BTS (Stent group) with those directly operated on (Surgery group). RESULTS: Twenty patients underwent urgent surgery, while stent placement as a BTS was attempted in 57 patients. The Stent group had more patients treated with a laparoscopic approach (64.9 vs. 5%, P < .001), higher primary anastomosis rate (91.2 vs. 55%, P = .001), less need for stomata (10.5 vs. 50%, P = .001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (7 vs. 12 days, P = .014). Thirty-day morbidity was reduced in the Stent group, although not significantly (29.8 vs. 50%, P = .104). However, 30-day mortality was significantly lower (1.8 vs. 20%, P = .015). Regarding the long-term oncologic outcomes, no significant differences were found when comparing overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence-free survival, distant recurrence-free survival or progression-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Colonic stenting as a BTS for potentially resectable obstructive colorectal cancer seems to offer better surgical and equal long-term oncologic outcomes when compared to those of patients directly operated on

Megarrecto condicionante de oclusión intestinal / Intestinal obstruction and megarectum

No disponible